Internet surveillance

Courtesy of Instapunit here is a moderately interesting piece on remedies for violation of the laws -- including the Patriot Act -- defining and to some extent limiting the government's right snoop into internet communications: The Volokh Conspiracy . The blog, as well as the Law Review article it references, argue that development of the law related to what the government can and cannot do in this area would be better served if the statues authorized courts to suppress evidence collected in contravention of whatever limitations are imposed by these statutes. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the author, Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, concludes that the Fourth Amendment suppression jurisprudence is of limited practical applicability in these types of cases. As a result, he argues, there is a need for the statutes that authorize (and to some extent limit) government internet surveillance to include a provisions authorizing suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the statutory limitations.

I have no doubt that Professor Kerr is right about this. However, my bigger concern is not with remedies but with authorizations. My sense is -- and admittedly it is only a sense because I have not given the Patriot Act the study it deserves -- is that the lack of a suppression remedy is the least of our worries. After all, suppression is only a remedy if the surveillance itself was unlawful. A far more serious problem, I suspect, is that far too much surveillance is authorized by these statutes.

In reality, this is simply a note to myself (and you): The Patriot Act is up for renewal this year. I (and you) need to better educate myself (and yourself) on what needs to be changed.